RE: Re: Extremism vs. Moderation

[Guest guest]

: We don't know nor do most of us care about your qualifications.

After all anyone can call themselves anything they wish in the anonymous

world of cyberspace. (And I'm reminded of the old joke that 50% of all

doctors graduated in the bottom half of their graduating class!).

But you did post your wc/h measurements recently which are a pretty good

indicator of thinness. And you seem to be avoiding telling us how much you

actually weigh and how tall you are (which of course is your perfect

right!). In the aforementioned post you said:

" My ratio is .37 but I will get it even lower. Possibly .33. Not that I

really try but I estimate I have another 20 lbs or so of adipose to

lose at a minimum.

Anyone else have a ratio under .35? "

You will forgive us for thinking this is typical anorexic behavior i.e.

saying you intended to get even thinner than what seems to be extremely

thin, and intimating that this is some sort of thin " contest " . Of course I

could be misinterpreting those remarks and of course you have a perfect

right to do whatever you want, but posting those numbers leaves us with an

obligation to tell people that we do not advocate extremism.

BTW we have one admitted anorexic in the group here (whom we greatly admire

for his forthrightness and his battle) and your wc/h measurements are MUCH

lower than his. And we do have studies backing up Tony's assertions which

are in the " Extreme vs Moderate " file . In that file, you will also find

testimony of people who tried extreme CR (and suffered mentally from it).

on 6/15/2005 2:56 PM, drsusanforshey at drsusanforshey@... wrote:

> You are questioning my qualifications? Go ahead, question all you wish.

>

> You " re not advocating anorexia? Good, neither am I. However, the

> degree of CR that one chooses is one's PERSONAL choice. I'll choose

> mine, you choose yours. Is this OK with you? Furthermore, I never

> stated my degree of CR on this list! What you and others here are

> doing is assuming from the basis some of my previous comments, and in

> doing that you will be more or less wrong. The degree of CR is a

> personal choice, and I have not been lauding extremism here. Quit

> reading things into my comments that aren't there please.

>

> Your comments on too low protein is well taken (you made these same

> assertions to me off list), once again I'm not advocating excessively

> low protein consumption to point of disease.

>

> Bodybuilders, male and female, also go to extreme low body fat levels

> without apparent brain dysfunction that you suggest will occur at

> those low levels. How do you explain this?

>

>

>

>>> [snip]

>>> With regard to the comments by the others, I disagree with Tony's

>>> lower limit of 14% bodyfat for women. I think it may be too high,

>>> too " safe " so personally I'm going lower. I'm not telling you too.

>>> [snip]

>>

>>

>> I did not pull the 14% out of the air. The American Council on

>> Exercise has these classifications for Body Fat:

>> http://www.annecollins.com/body-fat-calculators.htm

>> . . . . . . . . . . Women . . . . Men

>> Essential fat . . . 10-12% . . . 2-4%

>> Athletes . . . .. . 14-20% . . . 6-13%

>> Fitness . . . . . . 21-24% . . . 14-17%

>>

>> When you start depleting your essential fat, you are basically

>> depleting your brain which is ~60% fat (BT122YD p. 161) and your

>> nervous system (the myelin coating is ~70% fat).

>>

>> With regard to low protein diets, you can take a look at the evidence

>> by looking at minimums and maximums to determine the advantages or

>> disadvantages of both. We know that too little protein causes

>> marasmus and kwashiorkor.

>> http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section1/chapter2/2c.jsp

>> Too much protein is suspected of causing kidney problems. Somewhere

>> between these two extremes is the happy medium for optimum health and,

>> maybe, longevity.

>>

>> Minimum quantities of protein cause those bloated stomachs and grayish

>> hair that we see in those pathetic pictures that are used by

>> organizations looking for donations for children in Africa. The

>> maximum quantities (2 to 4 grams of protein per kg of body weight) are

>> used by muscular bodybuilders like Schwartzenegger. The hard bodies

>> of bodybuilders are less grotesque than those of the children with the

>> sad eyes.

>>

>> What is the incidence of tumors in bodybuilders? Are they at an

>> increased risk of cancer? Epidemiologically, it does not seem to be

>> true. Searching PubMed, I have not found excessive premature death,

>> kidney failure, or cancerous growths in bodybuilders.

>>

>> Low protein diets, on the other hand, have filled the cemeteries of

>> Africa.

>> http://www.childinfo.org/eddb/malnutrition/

>>

>> My own conclusion is that a high protein diet is not as harmful as a

>> low protein diet.

>>

>> It is said that wise people learn from the experience of others, and

>> that fools learn from their own mistakes. We can live better by

>> relying on the knowledge that we gain from published scientific work

>> that has been independently verified.

>>

>> Best wishes,

>>

>> Tony

>

[Guest guest]

Choose your own path and good luck.

I believe there is a logical flaw in offering body builders as examples

of extremely low BF levels. I'm sure they have more than adequate fat

they just have so much muscle that as a percentage it looks small.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of drsusanforshey

Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:57 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Extremism vs. Moderation

You are questioning my qualifications? Go ahead, question all you wish.

You " re not advocating anorexia? Good, neither am I. However, the

degree of CR that one chooses is one's PERSONAL choice. I'll choose

mine, you choose yours. Is this OK with you? Furthermore, I never

stated my degree of CR on this list! What you and others here are

doing is assuming from the basis some of my previous comments, and in

doing that you will be more or less wrong. The degree of CR is a

personal choice, and I have not been lauding extremism here. Quit

reading things into my comments that aren't there please.

Your comments on too low protein is well taken (you made these same

assertions to me off list), once again I'm not advocating excessively

low protein consumption to point of disease.

Bodybuilders, male and female, also go to extreme low body fat levels

without apparent brain dysfunction that you suggest will occur at

those low levels. How do you explain this?

> > [snip]

> > With regard to the comments by the others, I disagree with Tony's

> > lower limit of 14% bodyfat for women. I think it may be too high,

> > too " safe " so personally I'm going lower. I'm not telling you too.

> > [snip]

>

>

> I did not pull the 14% out of the air. The American Council on

> Exercise has these classifications for Body Fat:

> http://www.annecollins.com/body-fat-calculators.htm

> . . . . . . . . . . Women . . . . Men

> Essential fat . . . 10-12% . . . 2-4%

> Athletes . . . .. . 14-20% . . . 6-13%

> Fitness . . . . . . 21-24% . . . 14-17%

>

> When you start depleting your essential fat, you are basically

> depleting your brain which is ~60% fat (BT122YD p. 161) and your

> nervous system (the myelin coating is ~70% fat).

>

> With regard to low protein diets, you can take a look at the evidence

> by looking at minimums and maximums to determine the advantages or

> disadvantages of both. We know that too little protein causes

> marasmus and kwashiorkor.

> http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section1/chapter2/2c.jsp

> Too much protein is suspected of causing kidney problems. Somewhere

> between these two extremes is the happy medium for optimum health and,

> maybe, longevity.

>

> Minimum quantities of protein cause those bloated stomachs and grayish

> hair that we see in those pathetic pictures that are used by

> organizations looking for donations for children in Africa. The

> maximum quantities (2 to 4 grams of protein per kg of body weight) are

> used by muscular bodybuilders like Schwartzenegger. The hard bodies

> of bodybuilders are less grotesque than those of the children with the

> sad eyes.

>

> What is the incidence of tumors in bodybuilders? Are they at an

> increased risk of cancer? Epidemiologically, it does not seem to be

> true. Searching PubMed, I have not found excessive premature death,

> kidney failure, or cancerous growths in bodybuilders.

>

> Low protein diets, on the other hand, have filled the cemeteries of

> Africa.

> http://www.childinfo.org/eddb/malnutrition/

>

> My own conclusion is that a high protein diet is not as harmful as a

> low protein diet.

>

> It is said that wise people learn from the experience of others, and

> that fools learn from their own mistakes. We can live better by

> relying on the knowledge that we gain from published scientific work

> that has been independently verified.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Tony

[Guest guest]

Agreed but I think you may be missing my point. 9% BF for a body builder

who weighs significantly more, is " more " pounds of fat than 9% for a low BMI

CR'd individual. This also doesn't account for the difficulty in accurately

measuring structural and organ fat. I wouldn't expect a heavier bodybuilder

to have bigger eyeballs or a bigger brain. :-)

So IMO, body builders %BF are not strictly comparable, and even if they were

they don't seem to be particular examples of good health.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of wachendorfia

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:15 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Extremism vs. Moderation

--- In , " " <crjohnr@b...>

wrote:

> Choose your own path and good luck.

>

> I believe there is a logical flaw in offering body builders as examples

> of extremely low BF levels. I'm sure they have more than adequate fat

> they just have so much muscle that as a percentage it looks small.

>

> JR

Hi, and all--

Competitive body builders will dramatically lower their body fat to

extremely low (and possibly dangerous) levels, e.g., 3% or less for

men, 9% or less for women, just briefly for the duration of a

bodybuilding show. This process is called " cutting. " They spend most

of the year " bulking, " i.e., eating hypercalorically in order to add

lean muscle mass, but in the process they also tend to add fat and

their bodyfat may hover at levels as high as 20% or more for many

months at a time.

It's important to bear in mind that competitive sports aren't about

health, they're about winning, often at any cost. Many if not most

competitive bodybuilders also use potentially dangerous anabolic

and/or weight loss drugs. Longevity isn't their primary goal.

-Liz

[Guest guest]

I believe we are in far more agreement than disagreement.

%BF measurements seem almost too inaccurate to bother with. Caliper measurements

are based on lots of assumptions too so I suspect a 51YO weight trainer may not

fit typical profiles very well.

I can even imagine small errors in the immersion method due to different lung

capacity.

For example a runner may have more hot air.

I'm not familiar with Futrex but it sounds like a bio-impedance based device and

from mine and others experience with Tanita, this approach is hugely influenced

by

hydration (as you mention) and again based on gross assumptions. Many low BMI

CR'd

individuals attain negative %BF readings on Tanita's (oops).

I may rely a little too much on the mirror test (healthy should look healthy),

as this is also subject to cultural distortions. I'm sure I don't look healthy

to my overweight neighbors here in MS, and some individuals suffer from

distorted

perceptions of self.

IMO all of this argues against micro-management and extreme targets.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of wachendorfia

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:48 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Extremism vs. Moderation

--- In , " " <crjohnr@b...>

wrote:

> Agreed but I think you may be missing my point. 9% BF for a body builder

> who weighs significantly more, is " more " pounds of fat than 9% for a

low BMI

> CR'd individual. This also doesn't account for the difficulty in

accurately

> measuring structural and organ fat. I wouldn't expect a heavier

bodybuilder

> to have bigger eyeballs or a bigger brain. :-)

>

> So IMO, body builders %BF are not strictly comparable, and even if

they were

> they don't seem to be particular examples of good health.

>

> JR

>

Hi, --

No, I get your point, in fact I think I made the exact same point

about fat percentages back in post #18618. I just wanted to add the

point that bodybuildres don't KEEP their bodyfat at minimal levels for

very long. (Also, as an aside, there is in fact medical evidence that

bodybuilders who take anabolic steroids do have significantly larger

internal organs, often to their detriment.)

Another important factor to keep in mind is that most measurements of

bodyfat are pretty innaccurate. I test mine monthly using a Futrex

5000 machine at my gym, as well as calipers, tape measure, and the

experienced eyeballs of several professional trainers. The Futrex is

particularly inaccurate at lower bf levels, and it fluctuates

infuriatingly depending on hydration, body temp, recent activity, the

moon, the stars, the harmonic convergence, who knows. Testing total bf

with calipers depends on using an equation that factors in age and

sex, which is always way off for me because it assumes a woman my age

has much less muscle mass and bone density than I in fact do. For

example, if I enter my age as 51, which it is, my result is 23% bf,

but if I tell it I'm 21, it says my bf is around 14%, which is close

to what the Futrex & other measures usually indicate. And because I'm

a weight lifter, I do have way more muscle than the average 51 year

old woman, and my bone density is very high--t scores range between +1

and +2, which is the score of a healthy 18 year old.

Anyway, the point of all this is that these measurenments tend to NOT

be accurate, so there's a high likelihood that any given person may be

assuming an incorrect value for their bf%, either too high or too low.

So maybe when they think they're going down to 10% or whatever, it

wouldn't cause any problems at all because their initial calculation

was a false low, and they're not actually anywhere mnear 10%. But a

person could also run into serious trouble if the calculation was

false high. Just something to keep in mind when talking about bodyfat

percentages: unless you've been dunked or had an autopsy, your

estimate is probably off.

-Liz